Theoretically, yes. But when this pact is followed with a deal to divide territories, how do you call it? And when, as direct consequence of this pact, one of the signatory countries could attack undisturbed other countries, how do you call it?

We can make many theoretical discussions here and many blah, blah, blah. But we have to recognize the sacrifice of Soviet people, especially the Russian people in the victory against Germany. Their sacrifice was enormous and all those simple people who fought in terrible condition a bloody war deserve the highest respect. They really suffered a lot.

Drawing the debate, that's victory of one coaltion (Allies) over another coalition (Axis).And no one sane person, i guess, would deny that key role in this played by USSR. And i'm sure that without Western help and the second front (which was the 1st one in reality) ,USSR wouldn't be able to win this war.

What about terrible losses that Russians suffered in WW2. Only Stalin and his "smart" leadership can be blaimed fot this. This war could be won much easily if he took Allies side in 1939

Just LOL at yanks trying to get a slice of glory pie. Stick to nuking innocent civilians from the comfort of your Enola Gay.

The lend-lease was nice, but it definitely didn't help much considering the backbone of Soviet success was PARTIZAN tactics. You're a fool if you think some un-armored jeeps would help turn the tide of the war.

Mind you the Germans never made it deep into Russia at all (let alone fully secure the parts they did capture, which they were constantly harassed by Partizans in the rear).

Especially its funny how countries like Poland, Yougoslavia, France, Greece, Norway, Denmark etc. became Axis powers. Germans had to hold there a huge number of troops for all period of war instead of move them against USSR. Even in June 1941 taken together group of Army in France, Norwegian garrison, African corps and many other units scattered across all Europe, would allow to make one more 4th group of Armie in Eastern Front.

Drawing the debate, that's victory of one coaltion (Allies) over another coalition (Axis).And no one sane person, i guess, would deny that key role in this played by USSR. And i'm sure that without Western help and the second front (which was the 1st one in reality) ,USSR wouldn't be able to win this war.

What about terrible losses that Russians suffered in WW2. Only Stalin and his "smart" leadership can be blaimed fot this. This war could be won much easily if he took Allies side in 1939

Basically i agree with your post. If you read my posts in this thread you will see that we have no differences. We can talk here about incompetence of the Soviet leadership, etc. My point is that first of all the winner of this war was the Soviet and especially the Russian people. It was an perfect and maybe the last example how quantity won against quality. 10-15 years of course were not enough to make a backward country like the Czarist Russia, a super technological country like Germany. The only way to win against the German quality was sending this human river, even unarmed as one of the members said, against a perfect military machine.
The sacrifice of those people, deserve the respect. They paid a high price in human life but they saved their country.

Theoretically, yes. But when this pact is followed with a deal to divide territories, how do you call it? And when, as direct consequence of this pact, one of the signatory countries could attack undisturbed other countries, how do you call it?

Alliance is both work together, this pact only specified one dosn't disturb other. Nazis even supported Finnland against USSR.

But even if USSR and Nazis were allies, it don't justify USA support Nazis.

Alliance is both work together, this pact only specified one dosn't disturb other. Nazis even supported Finnland against USSR.

But even if USSR and Nazis were allies, it don't justify USA support Nazis.

USA didn't support Nazi. It is supposed that you have read this thread. There are plenty of evidences of the USA support for Soviet Union. Your problem is that you talk from the perspective of someone who live in XXI century. Also you ignore the dialectic of the events.

USA didn't support Nazi. It is supposed that you have read this thread. There are plenty of evidences of the USA support for Soviet Union. Your problem is that you talk from the perspective of someone who live in XXI century. Also you ignore the dialectic of the events.

Guy, USA wanted stay neutral during WWII and become rich selling needs for both sides, just only after Churchill pressure, the possibilities of a nazified Europe and the Japanese attack, USA entered in the war in the end of 1941. The war was runing since 1939 or even before.